21 Apr
2005
21 Apr
'05
8:06 p.m.
Hello,
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
I, from a user's point of view, am against the reversal of this
backport. I like the functionality in 0_9_0 alot and think it is very
useful. However, Juha's point regarding performance remains valid.
With best regards,
Martin Koenig
caller|callee_rpid notation makes no sense since
you don't have any rpid
for callee, right?
sure callee uri can also have rpid associated with it.
Plus that you restrict the AVP only to AVP name -
I
plan to have in dev branch the option to set an AVP id for rpid also.
that is the other issue i forgot to mention. i think it should be
possible already in rel_0_9_0 to give rpid avp an id instead of name.
since this rpid change (which was not a bug fix) was backported to
rel_0_9_0, it should be done properly, i.e., it should use avp spec like
tm avp params do. i just counted that in my script rpid avp may get
used five times during processing of one invite and i'm worried about
the performance impact of string rpid avp name.
so since the backport was against of the rules, i suggest that the
change is reversed or done properly that also allows an integer as rpid
avp name.